2001 Final Presentation

The Atlantic Team

JARED

Georgia Tech

Construction Manager

PETER

Georgia Tech

Construction Manager

HANS

Georgia Tech

Owner

KIM

Georgia Tech

Architect

YIP

Stanford

Engineer

Our Site - Boston

Site Location

Peninsula

Area of in-filled land

Winter snow

Site Constraints

Design Evaluation

Architect: • Concept fits local area• Less visually pleasing

Engineer: • Rigid diaphragm problem

Construction Managers: • Best budget

Architect: • Best looking building

Engineer: • Girders have deflection problem

• Sloped roof helps snow load

Construction Managers: • Very constructable & best schedule

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Design Choice

Alternative 2 Best combination of strengths vs. weaknesses

Wood / Steel Hybrid Combine the attractiveness / interest of 2W with the cost and

schedule benefits of 2S

Keep wood exterior structure of 2W, but incorporate the steel interior structure of 2S

Architectural Design

Kim Ferraro

Design Vision Concepts

Box in a box Simple, double structure

Advantageous use of sloped classroom and auditorium floors

Flow of light to below grade level

Exterior wood structure to gesture towards trees

Floor Plans

Auditorium

Classrooms, seminar rooms, labs

Student offices

Faculty offices, facilities, administration

Sections

Special Auditorium and Classroom Section

Typical Section

3D Model

Structural Design

Wai Yip Chan

Engineering Constraints

Soil Properties Compactable Soil 4000 psf bearing capacity Capacity, silt/clay and sand mixture 20’ water table

Loading Live Load 50 psf

Dead Load 70 psf

Wind Load 35 psf

Roof Load 28 psf

Engineering Design 3

Timber

Steel

Hybrid System

Evolution & Process

Evolution

TIE

V Brace

Inside Frame Plan

Inside Frame Plan

Typ Beam: W14X30Typ Girder: W24X55Typ Col: W12X40

Outside Frame Plan

Pre-fabricated wood truss with knee brace

Prefab wood truss 2"X6“ @ 24”Column 12"DIAKnee brace 2"X6"Joist 2"X4"

ETAB Model

Large drift in the top floor

Maximum moment at the mid-height of the timber columns

Load Path

Structure Load PathGravity Load

Lateral Load

Typical Connection

Steel Bracing

Wood / Steel Plate & Bolts

Construction

Jared Ford

Peter Knobel

Site Layout Crane:

Arm Length = 106 ft

Construction Road:

280 Feet Long

Trailers:

Located at Entrance

Safety:

Trailers & Toilets Not in

Crane’s Radius

Constructions Methods

Simultaneous Erection of Interior and Exterior Structure

Prefabrication of Roof Trusses

Work Sequence From the Center of the Building

to the Two Outside Parts of the L-Shape

-> Better Material Flow

-> Simultaneous Work Opportunities

$5,500,000

$2,750,060

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000

2001

2015

Project Budget Inflation Design Fee (7%) Overhead & Profit (10%) City Factor (16%) Means Budget

Budget Information

Cost Estimate

Cost Summary

$85,402$160,673

$229,385

$158,281

$265,214

$128,578$207,208 $258,559

$251,726

$362,083

$458,340$81,000$66,183

Planning & Initialization Concrete Exterior Structure & Roofing

Interior Structure Walls & Insulation Finish Carpentry

Wall & Floor Coverings Glazing Plumbing

HVAC Electrical Elevator

Misc (Lanscaping, Counters, etc.)

Total Means Cost = $2,920,500

Schedule

Schedule Summary

Total Length of Construction: 160 work days = 33 weeks

Evaluation: Completion 5 weeks earlier than required

Structure Sequencing

Graded SiteExcavationFootingsFoundationBasement WallsBackfillInterior ColumnsExterior ColumnsInterior BeamsSlabsRoof TrussesRoof BracesRoof Decking

Construction Sequencing

Complete Building

Equipment Selection

Steer Loader

Truck Crane

Excavator

Telescopic Handler

Team Dynamics

ANYBODYANYBODY

OUTOUT

THERE?THERE?

A-E: Location of Auditorium

E-C: Embedding of Exterior Columns in the Foundation

A-C: Size and Scale of Glass Storefront

A-E-C: Material Selection (Weather Constraints)

A-E-C: Roof Shape and Structure

A-E-C: Excavation Constraints (Infilled Land, Water)

A-Owner: Building Height

C-Owner: Budget and Schedule

Iteration IssuesTHINKING

DISCUSSION COMPROMISE

CHANGE

SOLUTION

DECISION

Team Process

“The process can be frustrating. We should always bear in mind that the other parties are not our enemies. We have the same goal, to design the building. Don’t let it get too personal, use the communication tools provided in this class, and then less frustration will occur.”

“After getting to know the other’s expectations and concerns better, we handled all issues much easier, faster and more effective during the spring quarter by anticipating everybody’s opinions and, therefore, avoiding problems even before they arose.”

“This spring we not only worked more thoroughly but understood that every detailed decision in one discipline in turn impacted the other two disciplines...Continuously iterating as we proceeded with the project”

Lessons Learned Cross-Discipline Knowledge

Objectives and Concerns Different and Discipline-Based Development Habits

Teamwork Efficiency Reliability Organization / Work Habits

Technology New Hardware & Software More Effective Use

2001 Winter Presentation

Questions?